netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:05:47 +0200
From:	Cedric Le Goater <legoater@...e.fr>
To:	Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6.24 0/3]: More TCP fixes

Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> 
>> Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm dropping the previous patches you sent me and switching to this patchset. 
>>>> right ?
>>> Yes you can do that... However, there are two ways forward:
>>>
>>> 1) Drop and test with this patchset long enough to verify it's gone...
>>> 2) No dropping and get the more exact trace by reproducing, which can 
>>>    point out to tcp_retrans_try_collapse confirming the source of the
>>>    bug or revealing yet another bug...
>>>
>>> The first one has one drawback, it cannot prove the fix very well since 
>>> the bug could just not occur by chance... Path 2 would clearly show the 
>>> place from where the problem originates because we will know that it got 
>>> triggered! I personally would prefer path 2 but whether you want to go for 
>>> that depends on the time you want to invest in it...
>>>
>>> ...I rediffed the tcp_verify_fackets patch too (below) just in case it 
>>> would be something else in you case and you choose path 1 (put it on top 
>>> of this patchset, applies with some offsets). In case the problem is gone, 
>>> it shouldn't trigger and if it does, we'll have another bug caught.
>> I have a spare node so I'm starting 2) with the 3 patches you sent and that
>> last one which applied fine.
> 
> Ah, that's path 1) then... Since you seem to have enough time, I would say 
> that the path 1 is good as well and bugs unrelated to the fix will show up 
> there too...

arg. yes. sorry for the confusion.

> I should have stated it explicitly that with path 2 those 3 patches should 
> not be applied because the aim is not a fix but reproducal. Path 2 was 
> intentionally left without the potentional fix as then nice backtrace 
> informs when we can stop trying (which would hopefully occurred 
> pretty soon) :-).  But lets discard that path 2...

I have 2 spare nodes so i'll run both. 1) is on already without any issues
i'm just compiling 2)

I usually work on -mm, so what would be interesting for me is to have what you 
need in net-2.6.24 which is getting pulled in -mm by andrew. then, if you need 
an extra patch for verbosity, that's fine, i'll include it in my usual patchset.

Cheers,

C.
   
>> all of them on a fresh git pull of net-2.6.24
> 
> That's fine, they're pretty well in sync (mm and net-2.6.24, and 
> soon 2.6.24-rcs too).
> 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html